Jeg indsender denne klage vedrørende Get Slots og deres håndtering af min eksisterende selvudelukkelse.
Jeg vil gerne gøre det meget klart, at denne klage ikke handler om de generelle risici forbundet med spil, og jeg påstår heller ikke, at jeg ikke bør være ansvarlig for min beslutning om at spille. Min klage handler specifikt om casinoets håndtering af en selvudelukkelse, der allerede var på plads, og som Get Slots efterfølgende anerkendte.
Min selvudelukkelse fra Anjouan Internet Gaming License-operatører havde været gældende i mere end to uger, før jeg tilgik Get Slots.
På trods af dette tillod Get Slots mig at få adgang til casinoet, indbetale penge og spille. Jeg indbetalte i alt $1.050.
Cirka en time efter jeg begyndte at spille, bekræftede Get Slots min eksisterende selvudelukkelse og lukkede/begrænsede efterfølgende min konto.
Dette er hovedproblemet: Casinoet anerkendte, at min selvudelukkelse eksisterede, men først efter at have tilladt mig at spille og accepteret $1.050 fra mig.
Hvis min selvudelukkelse var gyldig og gældende for Get Slots, burde jeg slet ikke have haft adgang til casinoet og foretage indbetalinger. Det faktum, at casinoet i sidste ende anerkendte udelukkelsen, ændrer ikke det faktum, at det allerede havde accepteret mine indbetalinger og tilladt mig at spille i cirka en time.
Efter dette anmodede Get Slots også om mine bankoplysninger, som jeg gav mig. Men på trods af at jeg har anerkendt situationen og anmodet om mine bankoplysninger, er jeg nu blevet efterladt uden en meningsfuld opdatering eller løsning.
Jeg mener derfor, at jeg har ret til at få de 1.050 dollars tilbage, som jeg indbetalte efter min selvudelukkelse, hvilket burde have forhindret mig i at få adgang til casinoet.
Jeg vil igen understrege, at jeg ikke klager over selve gambling eller forsøger at undgå ansvar for tab på gambling, blot fordi gambling indebærer risiko. Problemet er, at jeg allerede havde taget det specifikke skridt at udelukke mig selv, den udelukkelse havde været aktiv i over to uger, og Get Slots anerkendte det i sidste ende selv.
Casinoet burde ikke kunne acceptere mine indbetalinger, tillade mig at spille i en time og først anerkende og håndhæve selvudelukkelsen bagefter.
Jeg beder Casino Guru om at undersøge, om Get Slots korrekt har respekteret min eksisterende selvudelukkelse, og hvis ikke, om de $1.050, der blev indbetalt i den periode, hvor jeg burde have været udelukket, skal refunderes fuldt ud.
Jeg søger blot en fair løsning og tilbagebetaling af de $1.050, der blev accepteret fra mig på trods af min allerede aktive og efterfølgende anerkendte selvudelukkelse.
I am submitting this complaint regarding Get Slots and their handling of my existing self-exclusion.
I want to make it very clear that this complaint is not about the general risks associated with gambling, nor am I claiming that I should not be responsible for my decision to gamble. My complaint is specifically about the casino's handling of a self-exclusion that was already in place and that Get Slots subsequently acknowledged.
My self-exclusion from Anjouan Internet Gaming License operators had been in place for more than two weeksbefore I accessed Get Slots.
Despite this, Get Slots allowed me to access the casino, deposit funds, and gamble. I deposited a total of $1,050.
Approximately one hour after I began playing, Get Slots acknowledged my existing self-exclusion and subsequently closed/restricted my account.
This is the key issue: the casino acknowledged that my self-exclusion existed, but only after allowing me to play and accepting $1,050 from me.
If my self-exclusion was valid and applicable to Get Slots, then I should not have been permitted to access the casino and make deposits in the first place. The fact that the casino eventually recognized the exclusion does not change the fact that it had already accepted my deposits and allowed me to gamble for approximately an hour.
Following this, Get Slots also requested my banking information, which I provided. However, despite acknowledging the situation and requesting my banking information, I have now been left without a meaningful update or resolution.
I therefore believe I am entitled to the return of the $1,050 I deposited after my self-exclusion should have prevented me from accessing the casino.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am not making a complaint about gambling itself or attempting to avoid responsibility for gambling losses simply because gambling involves risk. The issue is that I had already taken the specific step of self-excluding, that exclusion had been active for over two weeks, and Get Slots ultimately acknowledged it themselves.
The casino should not be able to accept my deposits, allow me to gamble for an hour, and then only recognize and enforce the self-exclusion afterward.
I am asking Casino Guru to investigate whether Get Slots properly honoured my existing self-exclusion and, if not, whether the $1,050 deposited during the period in which I should have been excluded should be refunded in full.
I am simply seeking a fair resolution and the return of the $1,050 that was accepted from me despite my already-active and subsequently acknowledged self-exclusion.
Automatisk oversættelse: